TKT Module 2 common mistakes
TKT Module 2 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked for the aim of a stage, the candidate selects the teacher's action described in the stage (e.g. 'the teacher drills the new sentences') instead of the purpose of the stage.
Stage descriptions in TKT items foreground what the teacher does, and the most concrete, salient phrase in the text is the procedure; candidates match on salience rather than on function.
What to do instead
For every stage, write two separate lines: 'Procedure = what teacher/learners do' and 'Aim = what learners should achieve or why we do it'. Choose the aim from the second line, phrased as an outcome (e.g. 'to give controlled oral practice of the target structure'), never from a verb describing teacher behaviour.
The candidate labels a subsidiary aim, personal aim or assumption as the main aim of the lesson (e.g. giving 'to build learners' confidence' or 'to finish the unit' as the main aim).
Lesson plans list several aim-like statements close together and candidates do not rank them; affective or managerial statements sound important and get chosen.
What to do instead
Apply a ranking test: the main aim must be about the language/skill the lesson is built around and must be the one aim that, if unmet, would make the lesson a failure. Confidence-building, timing and classroom management are subsidiary or personal aims.
The candidate places information in the wrong plan component, e.g. writing 'learners may confuse the past simple and present perfect' under 'assumptions' or 'timetable fit' rather than under 'anticipated problems'.
The component headings (aims, assumptions, anticipated problems and solutions, timetable fit, procedure) overlap conceptually, and candidates rely on general meaning rather than on the specific function of each heading.
What to do instead
Memorise the function of each heading with a one-line definition: assumptions = what learners already know/can do; anticipated problems = predicted difficulties plus solutions; timetable fit = how the lesson connects backwards and forwards in the sequence. Sort each note by asking which definition it satisfies.
The candidate accepts or produces a stage order that is pedagogically illogical, e.g. free production before presentation, or a detailed reading task before a gist task.
Candidates judge sequencing by variety and pace ('it looks like a nice mix of activities') instead of by the dependency between stages.
What to do instead
Check the order against two fixed principles: receptive work moves gist to detail, and productive work moves controlled to freer. For each stage ask 'what must learners already have done to succeed here?' and reorder if the answer is a later stage.
The candidate plans or evaluates a single lesson in isolation, ignoring what came before and after in the sequence (e.g. treating target language as new when it was introduced two lessons earlier, or failing to plan recycling).
TKT items often present one lesson from a series; candidates read only that lesson and do not use the information given about the wider sequence.
What to do instead
Before answering, sketch a three-column timeline (previous lesson / this lesson / next lesson) from the information given. Then label each stage as presentation, practice, revision or extension, and check the labels are consistent with the timeline.
The candidate chooses an assessment activity because the format looks appealing or familiar, without checking that it serves the stated purpose (e.g. choosing a multiple-choice test to give in-lesson feedback on writing, or an oral interview to place learners into a grammar syllabus).
Candidates respond to the surface format of the test rather than to the purpose (diagnostic, formative, summative, achievement, proficiency) or to the construct being assessed.
What to do instead
State the purpose and the construct in one sentence before looking at the options, then eliminate any option that cannot deliver that purpose. Keep a short purpose-to-instrument table (e.g. ongoing feedback = formative, end-of-course = achievement/summative, placement = diagnostic/proficiency).
The candidate mixes up assessment terms, e.g. calling a test 'reliable' because it tests what was taught, or 'valid' because it gives the same result on two occasions, or labelling an oral interview 'objective'.
The terms are near-synonyms in everyday English and candidates translate them loosely instead of using the technical distinction.
What to do instead
Learn one diagnostic question per term: validity = does it measure what it claims to measure? reliability = would it give the same result again? objective = is scoring independent of marker judgement? Apply the question to the test in the item before choosing the term.
The candidate evaluates coursebook material only by topic appeal and does not check level, length, cultural appropriacy or fit with the lesson aim, so fails to identify that adaptation or supplementation is needed.
Coursebook pages look complete and authoritative, and candidates assume published material is already appropriate rather than applying selection criteria.
What to do instead
Run a four-point checklist on any material: level match, length/timing, cultural appropriacy, and alignment with the stated aim. If any point fails, the correct answer is normally adapt, supplement or replace, not 'use as it is'.
The candidate confuses the function of reference resources, e.g. recommending a thesaurus for meaning and pronunciation, a grammar reference for collocations, or a monolingual learner's dictionary for translation.
All reference resources are grouped as 'dictionaries and reference books' in candidates' minds, so they distinguish them by name rather than by the information each one actually provides.
What to do instead
Build a resource-to-function list: learner's dictionary = meaning, pronunciation, examples, collocation; thesaurus = synonyms/antonyms; grammar reference = rules and paradigms; corpus/concordancer = real usage patterns. Match the learner's stated need to the function, not to the resource name.
The candidate selects authentic material or a teaching aid for its novelty or authenticity alone, without considering task design, level of difficulty, or the aid's practical limitations (e.g. an ungraded authentic news article for elementary learners, or an IWB used where word cards would be faster).
'Authentic' and 'technology' are treated as automatic quality markers, and candidates do not weigh the cost of ungraded language or equipment failure against the learning aim.
What to do instead
For any material or aid, state the aim first and then ask two questions: what task will make this comprehensible at this level, and what happens if the equipment or the text fails? Choose the option that keeps the aim achievable with a simple backup.